12/29/2003: Comments on Negotiation Specification

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Those items marked with *** have been brought up in previous CPPA 
negotiation meetings, although you can cross check me, Marty.

***Section 3.4
To Dale's point re: versioning, we need to discuss the possibility of 
multiple namespace and business document references for a single BPSS 
(See discussion related to multiple namespaces and documents used for 
BPSS schema validation).  How does this affect negotiation? (Post 1.x 
BPSS item)

***Section 4
Line 273 Are we not allowing other process definitions?
Line 288 If we do not address looping at some level in version 1, do we 
recognize that  deadlocks could occur?

***Section 5
Line 318 Need to indicate that negotiation algorithm is out of scope for 
version 1 (diagram).
Line 348 Is it possible to simplify with the NDD to combine that with 
the CPA template? Not advocating, just asking.
Line 380 Suggest we say NCPA Template Instance or something like that - 
it is very confusing to say NCPA, NCPA template and then you have an 
instance of an NCPA Template (=NCPA?). This is equally confusing in 
later lines that talk about the template being someone else's that you 
use. Is this an area of simplification?
Line 456 Is it possible to have an either/or condition for a CPA 
template vs. a CPP, if negotiation is used? Probably a full CPP/A team 
discussion.

***Section 5.4
Suggest we only put a sentence in this section and perhaps merge 
discovery aspects with the WSDL description that Dale suggested in an 
appendix.

***Line 473
Reference to two origins for CPA template and different documents is 
confusing, particularly as earlier you distinguish them (earlier in 
Section 4 and 5).

***Line 490 This may be an area for simplification where we indicate at 
least in the first release that a draft CPA is not negotiable. I am not 
advocating this approach just looking for options to limit what is 
initially negotiated, within reason.  Equating draft CPA to a CPA 
template may also be confusing.  We may wish to consider if we do allow 
either to be negotiated that any differences during the negotiation 
process be explicitly defined.

***Line 509 Is not that matching done with an algorithm?

***Line 522 Keep composition and negotiation separate to increase 
opportunity for simplification.

***Line 533
a. Would not the NDD also include the values provided in the CPP or CPA 
template (if they are valid or default values)?
b. Brings up if these values need that attribute to infer they are valid 
(could we use item status on Negotiation Content)?

Reference:
In general, since the negotiability details are provided in the NDD, it 
SHOULD be acceptable to include any valid arbitrary value or choice for 
a negotiable item in the pre-negotiation CPP or CPA Template.  >>In 
other words, the NDD overrides what is in the pre-negotiation CPP or CPA 
Template for all negotiable items<<."

Line 582
Would we have a condition where actually the negotiation is synchronous?

Line 612 Same but converse question.

Section 9
Line 636
Open opportunity for simplification, again, by separating negotiation 
from composition. Composition could be handled by an offline process.

***Section 9.2
Look at the openXchange work on BP matching to see if this could provide 
an input to business process negotiation. See 
http://www.tno.nl/instit/fel/ts/exp/e-business.html.

Line 671 This is currently one for close redress by ebBP team.

***Section 9.3 Opportunity to use WSPL

Section 9.6 May have to broader scoped in the future to allow 
negotiation other than what is exclusively in CPP/A (if WS-Addressing 
gets into a standards body for example or a standards-based solution 
emerges).

***Section 9.7 Could we look on simplification in the security aspects? 
For example, either an endpoint proposes self-certification specifies 
the CPA template would include the required security parameters (default 
values) and restrict them from negotiation, or could they be set using 
tools that make a finite set of choices that dictate what the underlying 
values would be (restricted choice or negotiation). Limited choice 
extrapolates other values, based on the preferences and criteria set in 
the NDD.

Line 830
Section 9.8

    * PartyRef document negotiation out of scope
    * If there are dependencies how do we get to final signoff without them?
    * Would we need to have PartyRef signoff?

Section 10.1
Pass potential requirements to Reg/Rep.

***Section 10.2, 10.3
Consider if WSPL could be used here (such as simple matching).

Section 11.1.7
Could the business process business document be a type that can be 
selected or defined by the implementor to allow for other business 
process technology.  This may have an  impact on the other dependencies 
between CPPA and BPSS but is a natural progression for them both.

Section 11.1.8
May consider having some attributes that can help ensure the latest 
template or reference is made available.  One impact is that two CPA 
template may be available and both valid but used with different 
partners for different reasons, or conditions with one partner. I don't 
know if this is a current case seen by CPPA.

Section 12.3
Shouldn't the allowable state be defined in the BPSS instance? 
Otherwise, actual state may be held in the BSI and made available.

Section 12.4
Can the offer identifier point to any other protocol to provide the 
conversation ID? Can this extensibility be accommodated?

Section 12.5
Ensure that signed cannot be acquired until agreed is true.

Section 12.12
Third-party accommodation should be discussed with BPSS. We are looking 
at the possibility for agent or proxy (also WS-Chor is doing the same).

Section 12.13.1
This could be simpler to understand as an UML activity diagram. This is 
difficult to read and understand.   

General

    * Use of WSPL for simple pattern matching to shorten the negotiation
      process. This perhaps could be an automated initial negotiation
      that allows for the minimum set of agreed upon aspects within the
      parties to get to the CPA template and NDD for the difference.
    * Given the BPSS matching work by openXchange, this may be able to
      defer more of the negotiation associated with the business process
      document.

Simplification
a. getting to a minimal CPA template and NDD
b. pattern matching using WSPL (simplification and enroute to web services
c. doing the agreed and signed in the same action - may require changes 
for support with BPSS (12.11)
d. limiting security aspects

Thanks. Happy Holidays! Sorry I missed 17 Dec meeting as I was in UK.
Monica